To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Current Report
Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Fact Sheets are also available on our website at:
http://www.osuextra.com
Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources • Oklahoma State University
CR-2144
Rev. 0712
Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service
2011-2012 Winter Canola Performance Trials
C.B. Godsey B. Heister W. Vaughan J. Bushong
Associate Professor Sr. Agriculturist Agriculturist Extension Associate
Production season
The 2011-2012 canola production season in Oklahoma was good to excellent. Most parts of the state received adequate rainfall to produce an average to above average yields. In the spring we experienced several storms that did cause some lodging but most fields were harvested with little yield loss as a result from the lodging. The lodging was more a result from excessive winter and early spring growth due to ideal growing conditions.
The 2011-2012 winter we experienced was mild and very little winter kill was observed as long as the planting date was within the recommended timeframe. As long as the planting date recommendations are followed winter kill appears to not be a problem for most areas in Oklahoma when using recom­mended varieties/hybrids for Oklahoma.
Pest problems
Overall, pest problems were average in 2011-2012. Aphid pressure varied from region to region as usual. In the drier areas pest pressure tended to be greater. Some disease pres­sure was observed throughout the spring but did not appear to result in any yield loss.
Interpreting Data
Details of establishment and management of each test are listed in footnotes below the tables. Least significant dif­ferences (LSD) are listed at the bottom of all but the Perfor­mance Summary tables. Differences between varieties are significant only if they are equal to or greater than the LSD value. If a given variety out yields another variety by as much or more than the LSD value, then we are 95% sure that the yield difference is real, with only a 5% probability that the dif­ference is due to chance alone. For example, if variety X is 500 lb/acre higher in yield than variety Y, then this difference is statistically significant if the LSD is 500 or less. If the LSD is 501 or greater, then we are less confident that variety X really is higher yielding than variety Y under the conditions of the test.
The CV value or coefficient of variation, listed at the bot­tom of each table is used as a measure of the precision of the experiment. Lower CV values will generally relate to lower experimental error in the trial. Uncontrollable or immeasurable variations in soil fertility, soil drainage, and other environmental factors contribute to greater experimental error and higher CV values. Generally, a CV less than 15 for canola trials is considered good. This is an indication that less error was observed in the plots.
Results reported here should be representative of what might occur throughout the state but would be most ap­plicable under environmental and management conditions similar to those of the tests. The relative yields of all forage legume varieties are affected by crop management and by environmental factors including soil type, winter conditions, soil moisture conditions, diseases, and insects.
Methods
Test locations were near Burlington, El Reno, Ft. Cobb, Lahoma, Lamont, Kingfisher, Goodwell, and Stillwater. The location at Kingfisher was lost due to environmental conditions. Data from Goodwell is not reported due to a CV above 30%.
Plots were 4 ft wide by 25 feet long and seeded at a rate of 5 lb/ac. Soil characteristics and fertilizer applied is indicated for each location on later pages. Plots were kept pest free for the duration of the growing season. Entire plots were desic­cated and harvested with a small plot combine.
Additional information on the Web
A copy of this publication as well as additional variety information and more information on canola management can be found at: www.canola.okstate.edu/

Current Report
Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Fact Sheets are also available on our website at:
http://www.osuextra.com
Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources • Oklahoma State University
CR-2144
Rev. 0712
Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service
2011-2012 Winter Canola Performance Trials
C.B. Godsey B. Heister W. Vaughan J. Bushong
Associate Professor Sr. Agriculturist Agriculturist Extension Associate
Production season
The 2011-2012 canola production season in Oklahoma was good to excellent. Most parts of the state received adequate rainfall to produce an average to above average yields. In the spring we experienced several storms that did cause some lodging but most fields were harvested with little yield loss as a result from the lodging. The lodging was more a result from excessive winter and early spring growth due to ideal growing conditions.
The 2011-2012 winter we experienced was mild and very little winter kill was observed as long as the planting date was within the recommended timeframe. As long as the planting date recommendations are followed winter kill appears to not be a problem for most areas in Oklahoma when using recom­mended varieties/hybrids for Oklahoma.
Pest problems
Overall, pest problems were average in 2011-2012. Aphid pressure varied from region to region as usual. In the drier areas pest pressure tended to be greater. Some disease pres­sure was observed throughout the spring but did not appear to result in any yield loss.
Interpreting Data
Details of establishment and management of each test are listed in footnotes below the tables. Least significant dif­ferences (LSD) are listed at the bottom of all but the Perfor­mance Summary tables. Differences between varieties are significant only if they are equal to or greater than the LSD value. If a given variety out yields another variety by as much or more than the LSD value, then we are 95% sure that the yield difference is real, with only a 5% probability that the dif­ference is due to chance alone. For example, if variety X is 500 lb/acre higher in yield than variety Y, then this difference is statistically significant if the LSD is 500 or less. If the LSD is 501 or greater, then we are less confident that variety X really is higher yielding than variety Y under the conditions of the test.
The CV value or coefficient of variation, listed at the bot­tom of each table is used as a measure of the precision of the experiment. Lower CV values will generally relate to lower experimental error in the trial. Uncontrollable or immeasurable variations in soil fertility, soil drainage, and other environmental factors contribute to greater experimental error and higher CV values. Generally, a CV less than 15 for canola trials is considered good. This is an indication that less error was observed in the plots.
Results reported here should be representative of what might occur throughout the state but would be most ap­plicable under environmental and management conditions similar to those of the tests. The relative yields of all forage legume varieties are affected by crop management and by environmental factors including soil type, winter conditions, soil moisture conditions, diseases, and insects.
Methods
Test locations were near Burlington, El Reno, Ft. Cobb, Lahoma, Lamont, Kingfisher, Goodwell, and Stillwater. The location at Kingfisher was lost due to environmental conditions. Data from Goodwell is not reported due to a CV above 30%.
Plots were 4 ft wide by 25 feet long and seeded at a rate of 5 lb/ac. Soil characteristics and fertilizer applied is indicated for each location on later pages. Plots were kept pest free for the duration of the growing season. Entire plots were desic­cated and harvested with a small plot combine.
Additional information on the Web
A copy of this publication as well as additional variety information and more information on canola management can be found at: www.canola.okstate.edu/